Eating Pork

Eating Pork

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment to a comment on “TikToker Fired After Exposing How Plastic Is Getting In Pig Feed” by Anthony T (https://welovetrump.com/2022/09/08/tiktoker-fired-after-exposing-how-plastic-is-getting-in-pig-feed/#comment-5976483530). I argued that, according to the Scriptures, we were no longer obliged not to eat pork. My comment caused some discussion, with most commenters siding with the prohibition against eating pork. I call them Old Testament Christians because they seem to place more weight on the Old Testament than on the New Testament. Yet, none claimed that we are compelled to keep all the Old Testament laws; apparently, we are only required to keep the dietary laws. One claims that I did not know the difference between laws, statutes, and ordinances. Yet, when I asked him to explain the difference,  he refused.

Of all the conservative websites where I have posted comments, with rare exceptions, the commenters at this site have the least intelligence and knowledge. Most of them can only parrot back the Republican, neoconservative, and establishment conservative propaganda that they have managed to absorb. When they lack any good counterargument, they often resort to name-calling.

This discussion is presented in the appendix. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. I have added an afterthought to one comment.

Appendix

B: There are many reasons God forbids eating swine, add this to the list.

M to B: Pigs will eat anything, including humans. We need to run China out of this               country. Never buy Smithfield. Democrats would make good pig feed. Or, maybe                 we’ll find out there are some things pigs just won’t eat.

Me to M:  Most pigs eat a more nutritional diet than nearly every human in this                    country.

M to Me: Regardless, they will eat anything and Smithfield is owned by                                China. I eat bacon, just not any brand.

W to M: No worries. If I get hungry enough to eat Swine I’m already doomed.                      I’m not a Jew but when it comes to pigs, I’m Kosher.

Besides, God tells us that it is naughty to sup on Pigs!

M to W: But you can’t have a BLT without bacon. If we feed the democrats                          to the pigs i’m [sic] done with bacon.

Me to B: In Mark, Jesus declared all food, which would included [sic] pork, clean.

B to Me: No he didn’t

Me to B: Mark 7:19 — because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and                  goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

Pork is a meat; therefore, Jesus declared it clean. Your argument is with Jesus,                     not with me.

Cs to Me:  Yeah, no food can deflie [sic] you. Spiritually. Thats [sic] what Jesus                    was talking about. If you read the whole chapter, thats [sic] the topic. Read the                      next verse for clarification. Mark 7:20 

But God the Father did give us dietary guidelines on what to eat and not to eat, as                  it pertains to the body. Why would he repeat himself and say ‘Eat honey’ if later                    on he’s just gonna say, “Just kidding. Eat whatever you want.”

Its [sic] wisdom not legalism.

It wasnt [sic] about phyiscal [sic] health but spiritual. If the rabbis touched pigs,                    they were ceremonially unclean and couldn’t attend their services, etc.

Jesus was saying thats [sic] nonsense.

Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you;re [sic] likely to get                 worms Youre [sic] decision.

If you just go by Mark 7:19, it sounds like there’s no such thing as junk food.

Hope that makes sense.

Me to Cs: In Galatians 3:23–25, Paul writes that Christians are no longer                              under the law. “23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the                              law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 So that                            the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be                                      justified by faith. 25 But now that faith is come, we are no  longer under a                              tutor.”

Animal sacrifices were a major part of the law. Do you still follow the law                            by sacrificing animals, or did God repeal that law for Christians? If He                                  repeals one law, why can He not repeal another law?

“Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you're likely to                             get worms.” Obviously, you know little about modern-day pig farms. What                            you say may be true for pasture raised pigs. However, nearly all pork sold                              today comes from pigs whose hoofs never touch the ground from the time                              that they are born to the time that they are slaughtered. These pigs live in an                          environment more sterile than almost every human household. Moreover,                              chickens eat crap, and there is no scriptural prohibition against eating                                    chickens. (An old farming book that I have gives the following advice for                              maximizing a pasture. First, run cattle across it. Then, run pigs across it to                              eat what passes through the cattle. Finally, run chickens across it to eat what                          passes through the pigs.)

B to Me: Matt 5:18 (Jesus’ words) says he will not change the law. Lev. 11                            (entire chapter but focus on v 46-47). The clean and unclean foods are LAWS,                      Jesus didn’t change the law. You are misunderstanding an interpretation.

Me to B: Then, according to you, Jesus lied. Both statements cannot be true.                          If he did not change the law, why are we not doing animal sacrifices as the                           Old Testament commanded? [Afterthought: Jesus did not change the law; he                         fulfilled the law by completing its purpose and meaning. He was saying that                         nothing would pass from the law until he fulfilled it.]

B to Me: You don’t know the difference between laws, statutes and                                        ordinances. Jesus never changed the law.

Me to B: Please explain the difference between the three and                                                  provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: II Tim. 2:15

Me to B: 2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a                                                                        workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly                                                                      dividing the word of truth.

Uh! Your response avoids answering my question.                                                                    Please explain the difference between the three and                                                                 provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: Study yourself, i’m [sic] not going to                                                                        spoon feed you

Me to B: My studies show that I am right and                                                                           you are wrong. Moreover, most of the                                                                                       theologians and clergy that have consulted                                                                               agree with me and not with you. Also, I                                                                                    must conclude that you do not know the                                                                                    difference between laws, statutes, and                                                                                        ordinances and that you cannot provide a list                                                                            of them.

B to Me: Keep tooting your horn and                                                                                        puffing your chest out and eating that                                                                                        swine.

O to B: go outside both those books there were multiple                                                          references and (ellen g white is not a second god or                                                                 prophet... just a shrewd Mormon clone and a diet nazi                                                             [sic]) 1 Timothy 4:1-5 “Now the Spirit speaketh                                                                     expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from                                                           the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines                                                             of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their                                                                   conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry,                                                           and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath                                                        created to be received with thanksgiving of them which                                                        believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is                                                          good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with                                                              thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and                                                         prayer.” KJV

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Results of Israel’s and the United States’ War with Iran

Results of Israel’s and the United States’ War with Iran

Thomas Allen

Below are some dire prognostications resulting from Israel’s and the United States’ war with Iran.

Israel will cease owning Congress. More and more Representatives and Senators will turn against Israel or be voted out of office. Except for the Christian Zionists, Zionist Jews, the chicken hawks like Senator Graham, people who get rich off war, and dimwits, the American people do not want the United States to participate in this war. Additionally, as the number of Americans who have actually died and been wounded for Israel becomes public, Americans will become more vigorous in their opposition to the war and Israel.

After its defeat in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iran, the world will no longer see the United States as the world’s dominant military power. Most, if not all, of America’s military bases in the Middle East will be abandoned. (Eventually, all will be because of a lack of funds.)

Iran will eventually get its nuclear weapons. Also, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will acquire nuclear weapons.

Moreover, American global hegemony and Israeli Middle Eastern hegemony are dead. Also, British colonialism is finally finished. A multipolar world will return.

Furthermore, the petrodollar (the US dollar) will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. As a result, prices in the United States will rise sharply as foreign central banks unload their excess US dollars. These dollars have nowhere to go except to the United States to buy goods and services. 

Moreover, prices will soar globally. Because of the petroleum shortage that this war has created, the prices of fuel, food, plastic products, circuit boards (which need a special coating, most of which comes through the Straight of Hormuz), and most other products will soar. As the COVID shutdown caused prices to soar globally, so will the petroleum shortage caused by this war cause prices to soar globally. The United States get hit with not only prices rising because of the death of the petrodollar, but also because of prices rising as a result of the global petroleum shortage.

With the death of the petrodollar and the concomitant rising interest rates, the federal government will be forced to curtail its spending; demand for federal debt securities will drastically shrink. The United States will have to withdraw from its overseas bases and cease its imperialism. Most likely, America will become like Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Lacking the resources for foreign interventionism, the federal government will have to focus on the legitimate needs and priorities of the United States. Lacking the funds to fight unnecessary wars to make the warmongers richer, far fewer Americans will die in war, such as the Iranian war to make Israel great.

The ruling elite and their lackeys and toadies will fight vigorously to retain their power, privileges, and influence to control the people and extract wealth from them. Unfortunately, like the common Russians when the Soviet Union collapsed, the average American will suffer greatly from the changes that the war with Iran is going to cause. Hopefully, they will not witness what happened in Russia when many miscreants, reprobates, and unscrupulous people, a disproportional number of whom were Jews, plundered what little wealth the people had.

Zionism will receive a fatal blow, which means that Christian Zionism will die. With the death of Israel (Israel may cease to exist as a Jewish country), the current end-time religious teachings will be abandoned as just another false doctrine. Televangelists will lose so many of their followers that most will go out of business, and evangelical pastors will lose many in their congregations for teaching a false doctrine.

One of Trump’s arguments for attacking Iran and embargoing its oil exports was to weaken China. Ironically, as a result of this war against Iran, China will replace the United States as the world’s dominant economic power for decades to come. 

Because of Trump’s unconstitutional war with Iran for Greater Israel, the Democrats will regain control of the federal government. Once in control, they will amplify the economic disaster caused by the war by reinstituting the green energy programs and the woke agenda and by again flooding the country with legal and illegal immigrants. Thus, they will hasten the death of America.

The United States are destined to go the way of the British Empire and Soviet Union. Zionism and Israel have already brought down three great empires: the British Empire, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. Now, they are bringing down the American Empire. (See “The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel” by Thomas Allen.)

As Gorbachev oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union, so Trump is overseeing the collapse of the American empire.

Fortunately, I am a mediocre forecaster. Hopefully, most of these predictions will not come to pass — especially those related to the economy and the dollar and the Democrats regaining control of the federal government. Yet, the demise of the American empire and hegemony is highly desirable. Furthermore, reducing Israel to insignificance is also highly desirable.

References

Baldwin, Chuck. “The World We Knew Is Gone Forever!” April 16, 2026. https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/5014/The-World-We-Knew-Is-Gone-Forever.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2026.

Barton, Philip. “Bomber Trump’s Folly.” March 30, 2026. https://timesofgold.com/2026/03/30/bomber-trumps-folly/. Accessed May 2, 2026. 

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Republican Form of Government

Republican Form of Government

Thomas Allen

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, guarantees each State a republican form of government.  Ty Bodden describes the attributes of a republican form of government in “Restoring a Constitutional, Republican Form of Government: States Push Back Against Direct Democracy and Bureaucratic Rule,” January 16, 2026 (https://thenewamerican.com/us/restoring-a-constitutional-republican-form-of-government-states-push-back-against-direct-democracy-and-bureaucratic-rule/).

Each State should be a constitutional republic with a republican government. A republican government is “grounded in constitutional limits, representative lawmaking, and the rule of law.” It “requires clear lines: Legislatures make the law, executives execute it, courts interpret it.” Moreover, a “republican government demands transparency and public accountability — not self-perpetuating appointment systems.”

A constitutional republic is governed “by law, exercised through elected representatives, with safeguards that protect God-given rights against both mob passions and unelected bureaucrats.” Thus, States “ have a duty to structure their institutions in ways that preserve representative lawmaking, checks and balances, and protections from majoritarian tyranny.”

Under a republican government, “major policy decisions remain accountable to the people through their elected representatives.” Legislators cannot evade their responsibilities by delegating legislative authority to executive boards and commissions. Consequently, unelected rulemaking boards and commissions are incompatible with a republican government. If they exist at all, rulemaking “administrative bodies must remain subordinate, not function as a fourth branch.” 

The purpose of a constitution is “to restrain government and protect rights,” Bodden notes, “A constitution is not meant to be a running policy notebook, rewritten whenever a slim majority is persuaded by slick advertising.” Thus, it should not be changed on a whim of a bare majority, or else “liberty becomes temporary and rights become negotiable.”

Consequently, amending State constitutions should require a supermajority, e.g., 60 percent. State constitutions should not allow amendments through ballot initiatives. Furthermore, the amendment process should require more than just a statewide majority. It should also require majorities in various districts throughout the State, e.g., congressional districts. Such requirements ensure that the amendment has broad support. If both of these approaches are combined, which Bodden does not do, before an amendment becomes part of the constitution, it would need 60 percent of the vote statewide and would have to receive a majority vote in each congressional district or, alternatively, in two-thirds of the districts.

Bodden concludes, “Will states be governed as republics, under the rule of law, or as democracies, under the whims of shifting majorities and unelected managers? A republic restrains power to protect the people. A democracy too often unleashes power — first against the minority, and eventually against everyone.”

Bodden fails to address two important issues. One is that today the States are not republics and cannot become republics; therefore, they cannot have a republican form of government merely by making the changes that he recommends. The other is the electorate.

As a result of Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, no State today is a republic (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen). Although the governments of the States appear to be republican in form, they are not. Only a republic can have a republican form of government (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen).

For a State to have a republican form of government, a State must be a republic. For a State can be a republic, it must be sovereign, and as a sovereign, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can have a republican form of government, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and has the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen). Until States regain their sovereignty, they cannot have a republican form of government.

Who is the electorate of a State? It is “we the people” of that State, i.e., it is the body politic that ultimately wields political power (see “Meaning of ‘We the People’” by Thomas Allen). Today, almost anyone more than 18 who breathes is part of the electorate. (As Landslide Lyndon in 1948 and Biden in 2020 have shown, even dead people are part of the electorate.)

When the US Constitution and the constitutions of the original States were ratified, the electorate was limited to people who had a vested interest in the community. That is, only White males who owned a minimum amount of real property were members of the electorate. During the Jacksonian Era, most White males more than 21 received the vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended voting to Black males, and the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment removed the requirement to pay taxes, and the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. (Every time suffrage was expanded, liberty declined.)

An important component of returning a republican form of government to the States is to restrict suffrage to people who have a vested interest in the community. Only people who own a minimum amount of real property or pay a minimum amount of direct taxes (property, income, and capitation taxes) would have the right to vote and be part of the body politic.

Most States already have the governmental structure in place to have a republican form of government. What they are lacking is the sovereignty of “we the people” and restricting “we the people” to those who have a vested interest in the community.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Braindead

Braindead

Thomas Allen

In “The Hidden Crisis in Organ Transplantation — Brain Death Diagnosis and Ethical Failures” (September 12, 2025), a Midwestern Doctor discusses the relationship between brain death and organ transplantation.

In 1968, the medical system introduced the concept of “brain death” so that it could harvest organs before the body died. Yet, brain death has never been proven equivalent to actual death. It merely defines an irreversible coma.

A significant amount of money is made from transplanting organs. Organ transplanting ranks at or near the top of the medical industry’s money makers. Everyone prospers— the hospitals, doctors, organ brokers (people who acquire and sell organs), and others — everyone except the person who makes the ultimate sacrifice: the organ donor, who usually receives nothing.

However, to be used, the organ and, therefore, the body must be alive before the organ is removed. With proper treatment, braindead patients can be and have been revived. Yet, if they are revived, many people will lose a substantial amount of money: hospitals, doctors,  organ brokers, and others. Getting rich by harvesting organs before the donor dies stretches one’s ethics to the limit. (People, usually in poor countries, have been urged to sell their organs while still alive and often receive insignificant payment compared to the market value of the organ, but this is primarily for organs like kidneys.) However, brain death offers an “ethical” way around the dilemma of removing organs from a patient while the body is still alive. The patient is declared braindead, and the organ is removed before the body dies. 

(Some braindead patients who came back to life noted that they were aware of what was happening to them. They could still feel and hear. This experience may explain a person’s awareness during near-death experiences.)

When a person dies, his organs rapidly lose viability. The brain death concept allows organs to be harvested ethically while the living body keeps the organs alive. Not only does declaring a person braindead allow the collection of viable organs, but it also reduces the cost of long-term healthcare — a strong incentive under socialized medicine to have patients declared braindead.

Copyright © 2026 Thomas Coley Allen.

Other articles.

False States’ Rights

False States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

During the Clinton and Obama administrations, left-wingers wanted State officials to enforce federal anti-gun laws — even using force if necessary to coerce the States to enforce federal laws when bribery (federal grants) and extortion (withholding federal grants) failed. On the other hand, right-wingers strongly objected to States enforcing federal gun-control laws and claimed that States were not obliged to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court agreed with the right-wingers.

Now, the left-wingers and right-wingers have switched positions. Under the Trump administration, right-wingers want State and, by extension, local officials to enforce federal immigration laws or at least be required to aid federal officials in enforcing federal immigration laws. They approve of the federal government using bribery or extortion to reward or punish States for enforcing and aiding in the enforcement of federal laws. Left-wingers object and assert that State and local officials do not have to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Although both sides give lip service to States’ rights, neither believes in nor supports States’ rights. Both reject the notion that the United States is a federation of independent sovereign republican States. Both support the notion that the United States is a consolidated national empire with the States serving as administrative districts.

If they believed in and supported States’ rights, they would support States refusing to enforce federal laws, regardless of the law. Moreover, they would object to coercing States to enforce federal laws, even with bribery or extortion. (Extortion, i.e., withholding federal grants if a State fails to enforce a federal law, is a favorite weapon to compel a State to enforce a federal law.) 

Moreover, if they believed in States’ rights, they would support the right of “we the people” of each State to declare through their legislature or special convention, whether a federal law is constitutional. If a State (“we the people”) finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it could and should nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State and even jail federal agents who tried to enforce the nullified law. (Governors and city and county officials do not have the right to nullify federal laws; however, they may refuse to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws unless a State law requires them to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws.)

People who oppose a State’s right to nullify a federal law that they support oppose States having a republican form of government as guaranteed under the Constitution.[1] (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, they oppose sovereignty residing in “we the people” of each State. Consequently, they support sovereignty residing in the oligarchs who control the federal government.

Endnote

1.  As explained in “Returning Republican Governments to the States,” for a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Kim

 

[Editor's note: Unfortunately, the formatting system for this blog is not suited for poetry. It inserts a line for a hard return.]

[Author’s note: The poem was written about and to my cousin, who was a great comfort to me after my mother died, although she probably did not know it at the time.]

Kim

Thomas Allen

My dear sweet Kim,

You are the last bright spot

In a life that has grown dim.

You are the rising sun

That drives away the darkness.

The flames of your compassion overrun

My fears, stripping them bare,

As your warmth radiates into my life

Burning away my despair.

You are a beacon of hope

In a melancholy world.

You have not left me to grope

When I have placed myself in your hands, 

But you have always delivered me out of the realm of desolation.

You have answered my demands

By giving me more than I have asked for.

You bring an occasional peace to my poor soul,

Which is continuously torn by internal war,

By giving me your love freely

And asking for little in return.

You must be a heavenly gift to me.

Often, I have cried out to you

And you have never turned me away.

But my anxieties, you have sought to subdue.

You are a wonderful, beautiful girl.

Surely you are one of God’s greatest gifts to the universe.

A gift given to mankind, you are a priceless pearl.

Copyright © 1976 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More poems.

America’s Medical System

America’s Medical System

Thomas Allen

The main reason the United States have a drug-oriented (allopathic) medical system results from Yankeedom, which values power and wealth above all else, defeating and overthrowing the South, which valued family, land, and the natural order.

Following the publication of the Flexner Report in 1910, medical schools began closing, until nearly all schools that did not teach allopathic medicine ceased to exist. In 1908, the Carnegie Foundation commissioned Abraham Flexner, who was an educator with no medical training, to review American medical schools. The Flexner Report rejected all schools of medicine that did not follow the model promoted by the petrochemical-pharmaceutical industry (the Rockefeller interest). That model was the drug model, i.e., allopathy. Thus, the medical systems that it rejected included homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, and nutritional therapy.

Disease management through drugs and surgery is the essence of allopathy. Disease prevention with nutrition and root-cause treatment are abhorrent to it. The money is made through treating rather than curing.

Having invested heavily in the pharmaceutical industry, the Rockefellers, through the Rockefeller Foundation, began offering grants to medical schools that followed the Flexner model. Thus, the Rockefellers funded the medical educational system that promoted pharmaceutical drugs. Most schools that taught alternative treatment methods closed because of a lack of funds and accreditation. 

(One wonders if the Rockefellers had invested in electronics instead of petrochemicals, whether today’s medical system would have followed the Rife approach. The Rife system uses low-energy electromagnetic waves to treat diseases, each of which has its own frequency.)

Additionally, the Rockefellers gained control of the American Medical Association (AMA), which represented allopathic medicine, through funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. With Rockefeller money, the AMA persuaded States to grant it the authority to accredit medical schools and oversee licensure standards. As a result, only schools that taught allopathic medicine were accredited, and only doctors who practiced allopathic medicine were licensed. Consequently, America’s medical system came to support the Rockefeller pharmaceutical interest.

Now, if a doctor uses a treatment other than the approved allopathic treatment and the patient suffers an adverse outcome, the doctor faces a potential malpractice suit and professional sanctions. However, if the doctor prescribes an approved drug, even if it is harmful or ineffective, his action is legally defensible. He has followed the approved standard care and is, therefore, protected. Thus, following the protocol replaces independent treatment.

Moreover, with advertisements and sponsorships, pharmaceutical companies gained control of medical journals. Consequently, studies that support money-making drugs are published. However, studies that challenge the drug narrative are suppressed.

Furthermore, insurance companies reimburse treatment approved by the AMA. These treatments are primarily drugs, surgeries, and diagnostic tests. Seldom do they cover alternative treatments, even if they are safer and more effective than the recommended treatment. (Would not insurance companies save money if they covered the entire cost of an alternative treatment that is at least as effective as the standard allopathic treatment and required the patient to pay all costs above that if he chose the allopathic treatment?)

Health markers such as cholesterol and blood pressure are continuously lowered to enhance drug sales. Also, dietary standards are changed to increase drug sales — for example, replacing animal fats with seed and vegetable oils and discouraging the eating of eggs.

Because of the allopathic medical system, little progress has been made in cancer. The allopathic approach has prevented advancement beyond chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery (poison, burn, and cut) that were used decades before Nixon declared war on cancer. To protect the allopathic medical system, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) even declares that cancer cannot be cured and vigorously suppresses nonallopathic treatments — some of which are dietary. (Treating diseases is far more profitable than curing them.)

Yankeedom gaining complete control of the American medical system is one of the adverse consequences of the defeat of the South. Making money for pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers is paramount. The welfare of the patient is secondary. The COVID-19 response supports this claim. To terrify the masses, what was the equivalent of a bad flu was elevated to a deadly pandemic that was going to devastate the world. Then, people were offered an ineffective “vaccine” that was deadlier than the virus, even to the point of many people being forced to take it. America’s medical system prevents innovation, some of which are simple.

The solution to America’s dysfunctional medical system is more competition and less governmental intervention. More competition means more than competition between various allopathic facilities. It means competition between various medical systems, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, and nutritional therapy. Moreover, insurance companies should not discriminate between various medical systems. Governments should not pick winners and losers and should not subsidize healthcare. The only interference that governments need to perform is to prevent adulteration and fraud, such as false labelling, and to penalize those whose products kill or maim the user.  Neither licensing nor other governmental approval should be required to provide medical services. Furthermore, under the Constitution, all regulation of the medical industry belongs to the States; the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate the medical industry. 

Reference

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Uncovering ‘The Big Secret’ About Medicine, Food, and the Power You Still Hold Analysis.” August 31, 2025.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles.

Confusion About the Constitution

Confusion About the Constitution

Thomas Allen

Many people believe that we live under the Constitution ratified in 1788. We do not. We are living under the Constitution that Lincoln gave us, further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and carried to fruition by the Warren Court. Although the words may be the same, their meaning has significantly changed. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally altered the country and its government. (For a description of some of these fundamental changes, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” and “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. Also, before the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States were a monoracial country (see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen). After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government, and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated multiracial national empire. (Stripping the States of their republican form of government violates the Constitution of 1788, but not Lincoln’s Constitution. For a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State. This right is denied them under Lincoln’s Constitution. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Furthermore, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment transferred the sovereignty of “we the people” of each State to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government.

Moreover, under the Constitution of 1788, Congress was the strongest of the three branches of the federal government, and the judiciary was the weakest. Under today’s Lincoln’s Constitution, the country has a kritarchy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress.

Additionally, under the Constitution of 1788, the federal government was strictly limited to a few delegated powers. All other powers remained with the States. Under today’s Constitution, the federal government has almost unlimited powers, while the powers of the States are only those allowed by the federal government.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Day-Age Theory

 The Day-Age Theory

Thomas Allen

The following is an excerpt from Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1998).

The Day-Age Theory

According to the Day-Age Theory, the six days of creation should not be or cannot be regarded as ordinary 24-hour days.[1] They should be considered as periods of indeterminate length. As these days have an indeterminate length, they can be equated with the vast amount of time required for the geological history of the Earth.

In the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew word yôwm or yôm is translated “day” in the King James Version and most other translations. Fenton translates  yôwm as “age.” The word means day both in the literal sense of from sunrise to sunset or from one sunset to the next or in the figurative sense of a space of time of unspecified duration, era, or age. For example, Genesis 2:4 reads, “These are the generation of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” Here, “day” refers to the entire period described by the six days of creation in chapter one. Even in Genesis One, the word “day” is used in several different senses. In Genesis 1:5 “day” is used as a term for light. It seems to mean a period of 24 hours in Genesis 1:8 and 13. In Genesis 1:14 and 16, it seems to mean a period of 12 hours. As makers of day and night, the Sun and Moon did not exist until the fourth day. Therefore, the first three days cannot be treated as ordinary days.[2] 

The seventh day is described as God's day of rest. This day has not yet ended and therefore extends a long time. If the seventh day extends a long time, then the preceding six days may also legitimately be considered as long periods of indeterminate length.[3] It, therefore, cannot be dogmatically asserted that the six days of Genesis One must be treated as ordinary days. Based on the discoveries of science, the logical and reasonable interpretation of yôwm in chapter one would be “era” instead of a literal 24-hour day. Such an interpretation does not infringe upon God's sovereignty or creative powers. Neither does it prove evolution. What seems to finite man as an extremely long time is less than a moment in God's present, which is infinite.[4]

Further evidence that the days in Genesis One are not 24-hour days, but are days or eras of indeterminate length, is the description of events that occurred on the third and sixth day. Much more than 24 hours is needed for the water to run off from the emerging dry lands on day three. This is especially true if subsequent growth of vegetation also occurred on the same day. For all the events that occurred in the sixth day to occur within 24 hours is impossible. Adam could not have named the multitudes of species of animals that would have existed on that day, even if God created them during the first second of the day.

Time is relative. When one looks at the Andromeda galaxy, he sees what happened more than two million years ago. That is, his present is Andromeda’s past two million years ago. As Psalm 90:4 puts it, “For a thousand years in thy [God's] sight are but as yesterday when it is past.” That a thousand years in man’s eyes is but a day in God’s shows that God’s idea of time differs from man’s. That God has a different idea of time is supported by 2 Peter 3:8, which reads, “But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Time is relative to the observer. The days in Genesis One are best thought of as days of God and not as 24-hour days.[5]

Another problem with a literal 24-hour interpretation is how the Hebrews measured the length of a day. To the Hebrews, days were measured from sunset to sunset. Thus, a day was seldom 24 hours long. They varied in length. Between the winter solstice and the summer solstice, each day was the same length or slightly longer than the preceding day. Between the summer solstice and the winter solstice, each day was the same length or slightly shorter than the preceding day. The length of day would also vary with latitude. Between the summer solstice and the winter solstice, the farther north or higher the latitude, the longer the day in the northern hemisphere. Several days may pass at the equator while only one day passes above the Arctic Circle, where the sun does not set for days.

The creation week of Genesis One is best interpreted as a figurative week with long overlapping days. However, such an interpretation does not mean that the days and the week are allegorical, mythological, or symbolical. What is being described in Genesis One is a historical week, a real week. The events described for the various days are actual events that occurred in space and time. The day-structure is figurative only in the sense that these days are not identical to ordinary 24-hour days. Rather, they are indeterminate stretches of real, historical time. 

Genesis One presents a concise summary of the major events that occurred during the creation week. The general sequence of creation is given, but overlapping of these events is not ruled out. The creation week is described in terms of very broad, large-scale phenomena. It is not described in terms of precise, scientific, technical phenomena (as much as modern man may have wished it to have been so described). Not everything that happened is described. Genesis One is an economy of expression. It is a generalized description of major events.

Creation is just as Divine and miraculous under the long periods allowed under the Day-Age Theory[6] as it would be if God created the world suddenly and completely. The power necessary to originate and support a ceaseless and prolonged process of developing the world is at least as great as the power necessary to bring it into being in a week.

Endnotes

1. Before the Reformation, the days of Genesis One were not generally interpreted as 24-hour days. Only in the last 400 years have they been interpreted as a literal week of seven consecutive 24-hour days.

2. Augustine contended that the first three days of creation were not ordinary 24-hour days because they were not marked by the rising and setting of the Sun. The Sun is not specifically mentioned until the fourth day of creation. He said that it was difficult, if not impossible, to conceive the type (or length) of days in these verses. (He also held that the events described in the first two verses of Genesis were not part of the six days of creation.)

3.  Proof that the seventh day did not end with Genesis 2:3 is that, unlike the other six, the Bible does not state that “there was evening and there was morning—the seventh day.” The absence of this phrase is one clear indication that the seventh day was never terminated. Hebrews Four provides further support to the continuing existence of God’s Sabbath.

4. Perhaps God created the Universe 15 billion years ago, which is an extremely long time, just to show man how insignificant time is when compared to the eternal God.

5. In Joel 3:18, Acts 2:20, and John 16:23, “that day” seems to mean the whole Christian era.

6. A more in-depth discussion of the Day-Age Theory is found in Christianity & the Age of the Earth by Davis Young.

Copyright © 1998 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Trump Left Me

Trump Left Me

Thomas Allen

During the 1960s, a common saying in the South was: ”I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; it left me.” Well, I did not leave MAGA Trump; he left me when he left MAGA. Trump promised he was going to be a peace president, but he has become a warmonger. Worse, he became a puppet of Israel. Now, he wants to make Israel great at the expense of American capital and labor. Thus, he has placed Israel before America. Furthermore, he is purging real MAGA people from Congress because they want him to make America great again instead of following the neoconservative foreign interventionism of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden.

Trump has made some great progress on domestic issues. He is solving the illegal immigration problem, reducing the influence of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusiveness), eliminating transgenderism, ending affirmative action and quotas, halting the global warming idiocy, and standing up for Whites, who have become second-class citizens in the country that they built.

Unfortunately, Trump has made almost no progress in draining the swamp. At least, he has not surrounded himself with neoconservatives and establishment conservatives as he did in his first administration. Instead, he has surrounded himself with Zionists, who place Israel’s welfare above America’s.

Additionally, Trump has failed to hold the FBI and others in the Justice Department accountable for abusing the law and to give the falsely convicted January-6 protestors justice, although he rightfully pardoned them.

In the realm of the economy, Trump has been mediocre. He was making progress on rebuilding the economy that Biden had destroyed. Now he has undone his work with his stupid and unnecessary war for Greater Israel’s imperialism. 

His war with Iran is only going to hurt the economy of the United States as it drives up energy costs, which drives up the cost of most products and services. Moreover, his war diverts resources from constructive to destructive ends, as it destroys both precious labor (lives) and capital.

Trump’s tariff program, a key component of his economic recovery plan, has focused on bullying other countries with tariffs. He claims that one purpose of his tariffs is to raise revenue. However, raising revenue is secondary. Forcing other countries to bow to his will is their primary purpose.

In addition to tariffs, Trump has continued the traditional governmental policy of picking winners and losers. With subsidies and other federal intervention, he is promoting his favorites, such as artificial intelligence.

Instead of his erratic bullying tariff program and favoritism, Trump should have started eliminating all the unconstitutional agencies and programs that regulate economic activity. (Most federal agencies and programs that regulate economic activity are unconstitutional.)

Excessive credit is the underlying cause of most economic problems. Rather than reducing excess credit, Trump is expanding it with the extravagant growth of the federal budget and resulting debt. Eliminating unconstitutional agencies and their programs (most federal programs are unconstitutional), reducing the armed forces to the level needed to defend America but small enough to thwart foreign interventionism, drastically cutting the budget, and paying down the debt would greatly improve the US economy in the long run. Such action would bring about a sustainable economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen.

However, his interventionist warmongering foreign policy guarantees a growing budget and more debt, which are devastating the American economy. By concentrating on making Israel great instead of making America great, he is undoing all his work to repair the damage that Biden did to the economy.

Unfortunately, in foreign affairs, Trump failed MAGA to the point of destroying it. When he sold his soul to Zionism and Israel and decided to make Israel great instead of America, he betrayed MAGA. 

Nevertheless, Christian Zionists love him and his war with Iran. They are praying that his war becomes a global nuclear war. They need such a war to accelerate Jesus’ return. Some Christian Zionists believe that Trump is the frontman to bring about a nuclear war to hasten Jesus' return. Other people suggest that he may be the Antichrist. (According to John, Jews are the antichrist.)

What has changed since his campaign, when he was promising to keep America out of war? Is it the urgency of his master, Israel, to destroy the largest resistance to Greater Israel? Is it the urgency of the Christian Zionist to quicken Jesus’ return?

Using Bush’s excuse to attack Iraq (if we don’t attack them there, they will attack us here), Trump attacked Iran (his narcissism prevents him from openly admitting that Israel is his master, and he does as it orders him). With only a puny air force and navy, how could Iran threaten the US? Trump must not think that the US Navy and Air Force can protect the United States from an almost nonexistent navy and air force. Moreover, if the United States were not acting as an imperial power with bases scattered throughout the Middle East, Iran would not have any American military or naval assets to attack.

One of Trump’s excuses for his war is to free the Iranians from an oppressive government. Many Iranians sympathize with America and oppose the Ayatollah. Will they continue to view America favorably after the United States kill many of their families and friends? Will they view America favorably after the United States turn their country to rubble and then seize control of Iran’s natural resources?

Trump campaigned as a peace president. He was going to end the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza war and not start any new wars. He could have quickly ended both the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza war by cutting off all aid to Ukraine and Israel. Instead, he continues to provide them with aid. Worse, he has sold his soul to Israel and Zionism and has made the United States Israel’s muscle thug who beats up any country that opposes Greater Israel.

At least Trump’s war against Iran has been good news for some people. Ambassador Huckabee, Senator Cruz, and most other Christian Zionists must be in rapture heaven (they believe that they will enjoy watching the mayhem from heaven because they will be raptured away before events get really bad). Additionally, warmongers like Senators Graham and Cotton are leaping with joy before Lucifer.

Besides attacking Iran to bring about regime change to suit Israel, Trump also attacked and executed a regime change in Venezuela. It seems that he wanted to capture the oil fields in Venezuela, which are the largest in the world, in preparation for his war for Israel against Iran. Most likely, he knew that petroleum exports from the Middle East would cease once the war started. (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. When all his shortsightedness, blusters, and erroneous predictions about the war are considered, he may not have known.) Major US oil companies are the chief beneficiaries of his Venezuelan regime change, since they will receive huge profits as the world’s oil supply drops by 20 percent.

Distinguishing between Trump’s foreign policy and the neoconservatives’ is difficult. Both seek regime change and hegemony centered around war.

Nevertheless, Trump has done some good in foreign affairs. He has removed the United States from many of the United Nations’ agencies and programs.

One of the most repugnant acts of Trump is trying to drive and even driving some of his greatest supporters, such as Representatives Tom Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene, whom he did force to resign, from Congress because they objected to his neoconservative policies of hegemony, regime change, nation-building, being the world’s police force, and making the world safe for Zionism. Instead of Trump meddling in the affairs of foreign countries, they wanted him to concentrate on domestic issues.

Trump wants to be thought of as America’s greatest president. If he had kept his promises of being a peace president, he might have become one of America’s greatest presidents. However, he abandoned his campaign promises and became a warmonger. Now, he may outdo Lincoln and become America’s worst president, especially if his war for Israel against Iran leads to the global greatest depression or a world war. (One person commenting on this remark noted that Trump will have to fail even harder to edge out Lincoln on the race to the bottom, which is true.) If Trump wants to be seen as the greatest president ever, he has failed and failed hard.

At the behest of Israel, Trump is sacrificing America on the altar of Zionism. Will Israel order its subordinate, Trump, to nuke Iran? If so, will Trump do what he has yet to do with Israel and show enough courage to say no, or will he obey his orders? 

By being a pawn of Israel, Trump may have delivered the control of the House and Senate in 2027 and the presidency in 2029 to the Democrats. Taking actions to return the control of the federal government to the Democrats is Trump’s greatest betrayal of MAGA. When the Democrats regain control, they will undo all the good that Trump has done and expand the bad that he has done.

(Here is the best comment that I have seen online discussing Trump attacking Iran. Like diabetes, there are two types of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome): TDS Type One: Trump can do nothing right; TDS Type Two: Trump can do no wrong.)

Comment

An anonymous person made the following comment, which summarizes my observations. Of course, Democrats are rejoicing over Trump’s ego, narcissism, and stupidity, and his sacrificing America for Israel, although they will also sacrifice America for Israel.

“We had a good thing, you stupid son of a bitch! We had an Al boom. We had a Supreme Court super majority. We had both branches of Congress. We had everything we needed to save America and it all ran like clockwork. You could’ve shut your mouth, played golf, and stole as much money for your family as you ever needed. It was perfect. But no, you just had to blow it up. You, and your debt to Israel and your ego. You just had to make Netanyahu the man! If you’d done your job, known your place, we’d all be fine right now.” (https://paulcraigroberts.org/are-americans-up-to-the-task-of-survival/)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Religious Thoughts

Some ReligiousThoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the wisdom of John, “person” as used in the Trinity Doctrine, “kind” meaning “species,” and the Catholic Church as a cult.

More Wisdom of John

I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do not recall, and who died in 2012. He was a lay clergyman. He made two observations about people who claimed that God told them to do something. First, if any of these individuals ever heard God speak to them, they would likely be overwhelmed and drop dead from the shock and awe. Second, if God really was telling these people to do the things that they claimed He told them to do, then God must be suffering from schizophrenia (informal, figurative usage). He tells one person to do X and another person to do anti-X. That is, He tells one person to do one thing and another person to do the opposite. More than one clergyman has said, “One should be skeptical of people who claim that God told them to do something.” Many clergymen note that God ceased giving revelations in the first century AD; therefore, anyone who claims that God revealed something to him should be viewed with suspicion. (For more on the wisdom of John, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

Person

Trinitarians use the word “person” in a technical sense instead of its common, everyday sense. To them, the Godhead is three “persons” yet one “person.” That is, they used “person” to mean one entity (or God) and three entities. To say that the three persons are manifestations of one person is Modalism. To say that the three persons are independent is tritheism.

Common sense and logic dictate that three persons (such as Peter, Paul, and Mary) are three distinct individuals or entities; they are not one person or entity. However, adherents of the Trinity Doctrine call common sense and logic heretics because three persons are one person.

When a Trinitarian explains the Trinity Doctrine, he must tread carefully between Scylla and Charybdis to keep from crashing on the rock of Modalism and being swept away by the whirlpool of tritheism.

Kind

Some “creationists” claim that the term “kind” in the Bible  corresponds to what modern taxonomists refer to as “family.” It does not mean species. 

These creationists advocate the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. They deny the immutability of a species, i.e., “according to its kind” or “after its kind” — like begets like.

However, the Bible uses the term “kind” to refer to what modern taxonomists define  as “species.” According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 4327, “kind” means “species.”

Is the Catholic Church a Cult?

In “Revival of Early Christian Heresies: A Comparative Study of Early Christian Heresies and Mormonism,” Christian Jeo N. Talaguit gives two attributes of a cult: (1) "[a] cult . . . harbors an authoritative leader or governing body that can demand obedience from its followers due to its claims as divinely ordained” and (2) “[a cult advocates] the continuous revelation from God and mankind.”

The Pope is the authoritative leader who can demand obedience from his followers. Also, through the Pope and ecumenical councils, God continues to reveal doctrines that are not taught in the New Testament. Thus, God revealed the doctrines of the infallibility of the Pope, Mariology, and purgatory, among others. Since Protestants reject these Catholic doctrines, they are obviously heretics.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Before and After

Before and After

Thomas Allen

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment made fundamental changes to the United States and the Constitution of 1788. Although they did not alter the words of the Constitution that existed in 1860, the Constitution that was ratified in 1788, they changed their meanings. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based. Furthermore, it was illegally and unlawfully ratified (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment slew the Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will occasionally resurrect it to give “we the people” of the States the illusion that they still have rights.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent, sovereign republics.[1] After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated national empire. (For the difference between Lincoln’s Constitution and the Constitution of 1788, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

Before 1860, most people who preferred a national empire to a federation of republics considered the United States as a federation of States and the federal government as having limited powers.

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment demolished the Jeffersonian tradition of States’ rights by which the people of the States were the masters rather than the servants of the federal government. Afterwards, the federal government became the master of all, and the people, other than the oligarchs, were reduced to servants, even slaves, of the ruling elite.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, most people viewed the Constitution as restraining the federal government and not the people. Even people who wanted little or no restraint saw the Constitution limiting their lust for power, which is why they had Lincoln and the Republicans change it. Afterwards, it no longer restrained the federal government; they gave it almost unlimited powers. 

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, people became citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. Afterwards, people were citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States. (Moreover, the United States ceased to be referred to in the plural [are] and became referred to in the singular [is].) Thus, citizenship was changed. Additionally, before, only Whites were citizens. Although a State could grant Indians and Blacks certain privileges of citizenship, they were not and could not be citizens. They were aliens.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, sovereignty resided in “we the people” of each State. Afterwards, sovereignty resided in the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Thus, the location of sovereignty was changed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the country was monoracial. The founding fathers said so (for proof, see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen; also see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen). Afterwards, it was multiracial.

As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the descendants of the people who built this country, i.e., Whites, Aryans, are being genocided. In 1950, 89 percent of the population was White; by 2020, only 61 percent were White.

Between Monroe and Lincoln, many of the presidents and other political leaders favored a consociated national empire and, with one exception, would not have objected to what Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment did to the country. That exception was the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, all presidents, except for Cleveland, supported a consolidated national empire, where the States were no longer independent republics but were districts of the empire. Moreover, before World War II, nearly all would have objected to the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus, if right to vote for judicial officers of a State is denied to any eligible voter (male citizens 21 years old and older at that time), the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives shall be reduced in the proportion to the number of male citizens denied the vote to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Only in 21 States do the voters elect all judges. In the other States, the Supreme Court and most appellate court judges are appointed or selected by the legislature. Therefore, only the 21 States where all judges are elected should have representation in the House of Representatives.

Endnote

1. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment voided the first part of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees States a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government; only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican government. As a sovereign, a State, i.e., “we the people” of that State, has the right to decide if an act of the federal government is Constitutional. If a State finds that an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, it may nullify that act and prevent its enforcement in that State. Moreover, it may withdraw from the compact, i.e., secede. However, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment stripped the States of their sovereignty, and, consequently, they denied the States the right to have a republican form of government. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Geneses the Beginning

Geneses the Beginning

Thomas Allen

The King James Version translates Genesis 1:1–5 as follows:

        1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Most other translations render verse one “in the beginning” like the King James. A few translate it “when God began to create the heavens and the earth.” Also, with one exception, Fenton’s translation, all translate verse five as “day.” Their difference lies in that some use “the first day,” as in the King James, while others use “day one.”

In The Holy Bible in Modern English (1903), Ferrar Fenton translates Genesis 1:1–5 as follows:

1 BY Periods GOD created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth.

2 But the Earth was unorganised and empty; and darkness covered its convulsed surface; while the breath of GOD rocked the surface of its waters.

3 GOD then said, “Let there be light;” and light came. 

4 And GOD gazed upon that beautiful light; and GOD divided the light from the darkness. 

5 And to the light GOD gave the name of Day, and to the darkness He gave the name of Night. This was the close and the dawn of the first age.

Instead of using “in the beginning,” Fenton uses “by periods.” Instead of using “day,” he uses “age.”

To explain his use of “by periods,” he writes, “Literally ‘By Headships.’ It is curious that all translators from the Septuagint have rendered this word . . . B'reshith, into the singular, although it is plural in the Hebrew. So I render it accurately.”

Fenton’s translation of yôwm, which the King James translates as “day,” is also valid.  The word means day both in the literal sense of from sunrise to sunset or from one sunset to the next, or in the figurative sense of a space of time of unspecified duration, era, or age. For example, Genesis 2:4, “day” refers to the entire period described by the six days of creation in chapter one. (For more on “day” meaning “age,” see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen, pages 26-38.)

According to Unger, “in the beginning” could refer to a relative beginning rather than the original creation of the earth and universe. That is, it could refer to God’s creation of the earth at a much later period: God refashioned the earth at a later point in geological history.

About the days of creation, Unger writes:

If Gen 1:1 does not describe the original creation of the earth ex nihilo before the entrance of sin into the pristine sinless earth (Job 38:7), then the six days represent either (1) literal 24-hour days of re-creation, (2) literal 24-hour days of the divine revelation of re-creation to man, (3) or extended geologic ages or epochs preparatory for the eventual occupancy of man. Since the Genesis account itself is indecisive view (2) or (3) is possible, view (1) being sometimes assumed: untenable in an age of science. If Gen 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth out of nothing, and not the refashioning of an earth that suffered chaos in connection with the entrance of sin into the universe, then the six days represent the same possibilities, 1-3 as indicated above.[1]

Fenton’s translation solves much of the apparent disagreement between God’s word and God’s geology (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen). It eliminates the need to explain away geology that shows that the Earth is much older than 6000 to 10,000 years. It eliminates the need to try to fit the Earth’s ancient geologic history into a 144-hour week, i.e., six 24-hour days.  Moreover, it eliminates explaining away the paleontologic record as do the young-earth advocates by having it mostly created by a global flood about 4300–4400 years ago. (The geological record does not support such a flood.) Furthermore, it eliminates the need to explain away Chapter 1 of Genesis as myth or allegory to make it fit the Earth’s ancient geologic and paleontologic history. With his translation, most of the conflict between the Earth’s ancient geologic and paleontologic history and Chapter 1 of Genesis is eliminated. Additionally, the seventh day is described as God's day of rest; this day has not yet ended and, therefore, extends a long time.

Endnote

1. Merrill F Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960), p. 38.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.